This was a divorce suit by the husband, Homer B. Martin, against the wife, Grace Martin, and she answered by general demurrer, general denial, and by cross-action, praying that the plaintiff be’ refused a divorce, and that she, the defendant, be granted a divorce, praying that she he allowed $100 as attorney’s fees, and that she have judgment against Homer B. Martin for the sum of $15 per month until their minor child should become of age. The trial court refused a divorce to the plaintiff, granted a divorce to the defendant on her cross-bill, rendered judgment for her for $50 attorney’s fees, and rendered judgment for her and against Homer B. Martin for the sum of $8 per month until their minor child should become of age.
In presentation of the case before this court, appellant abandons his assignment which questioned the correctness of the court’s judgment in granting a divorce to Grace Martin, and also abandons his assignment that the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the wife against the husband, for attorney’s fee. Therefore we do not consider those questions. The assignment that the court erred in awarding the sum of $8 a month to the wife for a period of years is sustained. See Ligon v. Ligon, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 87 S. W. 838; Bond v. Bond, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 90 S. W. 1128; Barry v. Barry, 131 S. W. 1142.
It is very strenuously contended by ap-pellee’s counsel that these decisions are unsound ; that as the Constitution vests the *345jurisdiction of divorce cases in a district court, and as that court has the power to award the custody of the children to either spouse and to divide the property between them, it follows that it must necessarily have power to make a provision for the support and maintenance of the child during its minority .by awarding a judgment against the husband in favor of the wife for that purpose. In this connection, however, it may be said that the record in this, case does not show that the judgment in favor of the wife for the support of the child is conditioned in any way on the life of the child. Therefore the exact question we have before us is whether an award of this kind, in its nature permanent, can be made to the wife. But whether we construe the judgment as being in favor of the wife for the support of the child, without any condition that the child shall live, or construe it simply as an award of more than temporary alimony to the wife, it has been definitely decided in the cases cited that it cannot validly be done. We may say, also, that, in addition to the persuasive force of the decisions of the other courts of appeals above noted, the reasoning upon which said cases are determined commends itself to our judg-nent, and we agree with it. As we read those decisions, they do not hold that the child cannot recover of the father, under circumstances like these, for its support and maintenance, notwithstanding the divorce, but simply that there has been no provision made in the statute authorizing a district court to make such an award in a divorce case, and that, as divorce is the creature of statute, the power given the district court in reference thereto comes from the statute, and, there being no such power as is here exercised, the exercise of it is invalid.
For the reasons indicated, the judgment of the lower court will be reformed as to so much of it as awarded judgment to the wife for the sum of $8 per month, and here rendered in favor of the appellant to that extent. The remaining portion of the judgment will be affirmed.
As appellant has been forced to appeal to this court to obtain relief against the portion of the judgment indicated, costs of the appeal will be taxed against the appellee:
Reformed and affirmed.